EU4 - Development Diary - 24th of January 2017

[HistoricGamer7]

Two things:
From what I hear, this patch focuses on China, so I thought of a mechanic where a Chinese nation/dynasty (such as Min, Wu, etc) is able to become more powerful than an existing nation/dynasty (Ming), and get a "claim mandate of heaven" decision and/or event which would give the new nation the Celestial Empire government and its mechanics (until a certain era).
I also feel that national abilities should change. Prussia shouldn't get another military bonus, especially now that it has the new Prussian Monarchy government. Russia should have something other than states as an ability (unless the patch would reduce the amount of initial states). Finally, Austria shouldn't have that +5 diplomatic reputation considering the fact that after a few HRE reforms, a statesmen for an adviser and max legitimacy and ideas, Austria would already have around +6 diplo rep.
BTW, I would like to have a reply stating any mistakes or anything you might agree and/or disagree with.

 

[bbqftw]

Two things:
From what I hear, this patch focuses on China, so I thought of a mechanic where a Chinese nation/dynasty (such as Min, Wu, etc) is able to become more powerful than an existing nation/dynasty (Ming), and get a "claim mandate of heaven" decision and/or event which would give the new nation the Celestial Empire government and its mechanics (until a certain era).
I also feel that national abilities should change. Prussia shouldn't get another military bonus, especially now that it has the new Prussian Monarchy government. Russia should have something other than states as an ability (unless the patch would reduce the amount of initial states). Finally, Austria shouldn't have that +5 diplomatic reputation considering the fact that after a few HRE reforms, a statesmen for an adviser and max legitimacy and ideas, Austria would already have around +6 diplo rep.
BTW, I would like to have a reply stating any mistakes or anything you might agree and/or disagree with.

Celestial empire is such an awful government that you'd want to pull stunts like culture shifting out of Chinese (maybe to superior japanese after getting global trade embraced..?) just to avoid getting that government.

 

[Super-Soviet]

Whose this little chap?

 

[No idea]

Do colonial nations count as subjects for the purposes of getting the requisites to achieve the age of revolutions?

 

[grommile]

Doesn't really fit the whole barricade scene though. It's also still not relevant to the EU4 era, given that this painting is celebrating the revolution of July 1830. (The original 1789 revolution was so exciting that the French took the better part of a century to calm down and figure out what kind of government they really wanted.)

And the conclusion was "the various flavours of monarchist would rather have a republic than have the wrong royal line"

 

[Willem IV]

Whose this little chap?
View attachment 233353

Imperial Dragon of China

 

[Lordban]

With regards to the barricades, it's actually an ahistorical representation, there wasn't too much of the phenomenon happening during the Révolution and the tricolore flag as such was not in use to that extent, nor with that design most of the era (it is first adopted in 1812, is phased out for obvious reasons under the Restoration, and doesn't show up on barricades until 1830). I'd point towards the Bastille instead (the quintessential revolutionary scene), for which there is plenty of inspiration to be found.

 

[riadach]

As usual Spain and Prussia get bs buffs.. while England, Russia and Poland get trash...

I think the devastation mechanic should make England stronger than its rivals anyway, which would be quite historical.

 

[TheDungen]

I think the problem is actually, that Russia is bordering Poland, Sweden and Prussia in the west and Ottomans in the south. All of those have top-tier mil ideas while Russia itself has NOTHING (aside from measly 0.5 army tradition).
Russia should at least have some defensive buffs, like extra winter attrition for enemies or something.
But at this point I doubt anything will change with national ideas anymore.

While yes there may be a large difference in the ideas they get we got to remember russia usually does very well, perhaps not as well as the commonwealth, but much better than AI prussia or Sweden. Sweden in fact seems to be stuck between rock and hard place, if the union with Denmark does not fail russia always devours them.

Yeah...that's why they were able to win at Molodi. Also:
Battle of Cassano, Battle of Trebia, Battle of Novi, also there was battle on Schöllenen Gorge (but there is nothing about it on wikipedia for some reason).
Battle of Zorndorf (considering that Russian general was mediocre at best and was fighting Old Fritz himself), Battle of Kunersdorf.

I can find other battle, but they were, mostly, against Poland, Sweden and Ottomans. And, most of the time, Russian forces won. Considering the bonuses Poland have...Well, yeah. They have one of the best military ideas. Compared to Russia - garbage.

Also, it will be strange to you - but in most battle Russian didn't have large numbers. Cause. you now, population wasn't like in France.

And i can find to you a lot of good military leaders.

I'm sorry at this point I have no idea what argument and what point you're really trying to make.

 

[TheDungen]

With regards to the barricades, it's actually an ahistorical representation, there wasn't too much of the phenomenon happening during the Révolution and the tricolore flag as such was not in use to that extent, nor with that design most of the era (it is first adopted in 1812, is phased out for obvious reasons under the Restoration, and doesn't show up on barricades until 1830). I'd point towards the Bastille instead (the quintessential revolutionary scene), for which there is plenty of inspiration to be found.

Except the storming of the Bastille just looks like an attack against a random castle.

I think the devastation mechanic should make England stronger than its rivals anyway, which would be quite historical.

Would it? When in the EU4 era was england stronger than it's rivals? Most of england's empire cam from the defeat of napoleon right at the end, a defeat they had very little part in creating. England needs nerfing not buffing.

 

[Mortheim]

I'm sorry at this point I have no idea what argument and what point you're really trying to make. Half of it seems to be nationalistic rambling and the other half, half finished sentences with dangling modifiers.

I. Just. Linked. Battles. That. Were. Won. In. 18th. Century. By. Russia. Against. France. And. Prussia.
And. Show. That. Main. Western. Rival. Has. Better. Ideas. While. Lost. More. Battles. Against. Russia.
And. I. Can. Link. Earlier. Battles. If. You. Want.
I. Hope. If. I. Will. Speak. Word. After. Word. Slowly. You. Will. Understand.
You. Made. Points. With. No. Knowledge. About. Russian. History.

 

[riadach]

Would it? When in the EU4 era was england stronger than it's rivals? Most of england's empire cam from the defeat of napoleon right at the end, a defeat they had very little part in creating. England needs nerfing not buffing.

I was misspeaking, sorry. I meant that England was quite advantaged by the fact that very few foreign armies, in contrast with continental powers, invaded and disrupted the peace. This no doubt helped encourage economic development to Britain's advantage and I imagine this will be reflected in the devastaion/prosperity mechanic in game. I didn't wish to make any absolute claims about Britain's power in relation to other countries.

 

[Lordban]

Except the storming of the Bastille just looks like an attack against a random castle.

It's exactly what it was - and the other major scenes of the same type are hardly different, although you can have tricolore flags in the storming of the Tuileries or of the Hôtel de Ville, also good subjects but not as symbolic. The barricades, however, are essentially ahistorical for that period, as well as misleading as most of the significant insurrections of the French Révolution were offensive in nature (the exception being the failed disarmed march Napoléon suppressed).

Another possibility would be imagery from the battle of Valmy, which does use the three colors and would also show, in the period's imagery, a literal army of the people.

 

[Lordban]

Yeah...that's why they were able to win at Molodi. Also:
Battle of Cassano, Battle of Trebia, Battle of Novi, also there was battle on Schöllenen Gorge (but there is nothing about it on wikipedia for some reason).
Battle of Zorndorf (considering that Russian general was mediocre at best and was fighting Old Fritz himself), Battle of Kunersdorf.

I didn't find Schöllenen Gorge either, but only Cassano fits criteria for lesser numbers on the Russian side. Four of those are fought with allies. One is inconclusive. One quoted involves Revolutionary France, but bringing it into the conversation seriously tilts the conversation in disfavor of Russia.

 

[TheDungen]

I. Just. Linked. Battles. That. Were. Won. In. 18th. Century. By. Russia. Against. France. And. Prussia.
And. Show. That. Main. Western. Rival. Has. Better. Ideas. While. Lost. More. Battles. Against. Russia.
And. I. Can. Link. Earlier. Battles. If. You. Want.
I. Hope. If. I. Will. Speak. Word. After. Word. Slowly. You. Will. Understand.
You. Made. Points. With. No. Knowledge. About. Russian. History.

You just posted a lot of links without context. With half finished sentences as explanation.
And examples of battles does not make a trend or a statistic. I can find battles where any country lost a battle against any country (provided that they have been at war). I can find you battles when Russia's proud army was driven away by Swedish peasants, that does not make a ground for an argument though because it's an isolated incident. So how about you get of the nationalism and either contribute in a constructive way to the debate.
You're not speaking slowly you're writing and that there is the problem you write as if you're speaking and you can't do that. when you speak tone confers a lot of things, when writing that has to be replaced with actually making sure the other person understands. For an example sarcasm, as I assume the first sentence was is really stupid to use in writing since there is no way of telling if someone is being sarcastic for the reader. Don't pawn of you failure to communicate as me being bad at understanding.

Also you seem to labour under the missconception that I support the status quo. I fully agree that at least one of Russia's number ideas should be changed for something else.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

Since the Age of Absolutism has a fixed end date and Age of Revolutions has a dynamic start date, can we have years between them that are not part of any age?

None of the ages have fixed start or end dates anymore. They're all based on institutions now.

 

[TheDungen]

None of the ages have fixed start or end dates anymore. They're all based on institutions now.

They are? I thought that was just an example of it being moddable.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

They are? I thought that was just an example of it being moddable.

Apparently it's been confirmed in the dev-stream. I may have been wrong about all of them being based on institutions.

 

[TheDungen]

Apparently it's been confirmed in the dev-stream. I may have been wrong about all of them being based on institutions.

On the other hand you may well be right.

 

[mursolini]

Battle of Cassano, Battle of Trebia, Battle of Novi, also there was battle on Schöllenen Gorge (but there is nothing about it on wikipedia for some reason).
Battle of Zorndorf (considering that Russian general was mediocre at best and was fighting Old Fritz himself), Battle of Kunersdorf.
So, not only turks were defeated, as you see.

I`m at lost, how did you manage to interpret "mostly" as "only"? Language barrier?

10 out of 10. Bets joke of the century.

Russian fights brought them land in Poland, Baltic, and Black sea(and Siberia but no point discussing those).
Poland was very weak due to internal troubles and devastating wars raging for 50+ years on it`s soil.
Ottomans were clearly in decline.
Sweden, was dog piled by Russia, Denmark, Poland and to a point Prussia, till it succumbed, and was broken.

Surely, it was a good century for Russia, but "superiority" of it`s army clearly was not the reason for their success. Their strength came from economy and internal stability that could maintain decades of war and could allow out-lasting any other power, that saved Russians twice, from Swedes and from Napoleon, unlike, say Poland, that was devastated with wars and internal strife to the point it could no longer field army worthy of note.

Russian army sometimes punched above it`s weight, sometimes it failed, and many wars were just plain inconclusive, because nobody wanted to attack deep into Russia, seeing how that failed on Swedes. But we also must consider that what Russians sent abroad was the best they had, while worse units would stay guarding their wast borders, while same was not true for their foes.

It seems nearly every war Russia fought had their army needing several attempts to break the enemy, with initial fights being either inconclusive or outright bad for them. Then, eventually, Russian reinforcements simply overwhelmed enemy, having both quantity and qualitative edge, being best troops that very large country could muster. Russia committed 3/4 of it`s field line infantry army to 7-years war fighting, and gained basically noting, nor did it break Prussia despite it being surrounded.

Come on, list of 6 battles won over a century is not impressive(note, I`m obviously saying that they are not the only ones won! ), nor is it indicator of great quality of the army. We can quite easily compile equal list for most countries.

What matters is that Russia won without having to commit most of it`s army, and most of the time, never touching internal reserves. That is the indicator of size of the army, strength of economy and logistical limitations.